Maybe it is good to realize your question is rethorical, since none of the anwers seem to please you. You keep on asking why Marin didn't use these sources, but as a matter of fact, this is more a complaint, rather than a question. I mean, what do you want to hear? Marin did not use these sources because he is just a lazy, incompetent author, and his books suck big time. Something like that?

I want Aagaard to admit that Marin didn't use all available sources that he should have used and therefore the book isn't as good as it could be!

Well, if that has been your project here with so many juvenile, boringly repetitious posts, you may go to everlasting blazes. I have reached the end of my tether with your incessant carping. I shall never again respond to one of your posts here, or comment about it here to someone else. I suggest the same course to others. Ex communicatio te condemno.

The Great Oz has spoken!

IP Logged

Anonymous

Ex Member

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #108 - 07/18/08 at 21:51:16

Maybe it is good to realize your question is rethorical, since none of the anwers seem to please you. You keep on asking why Marin didn't use these sources, but as a matter of fact, this is more a complaint, rather than a question. I mean, what do you want to hear? Marin did not use these sources because he is just a lazy, incompetent author, and his books suck big time. Something like that?

I want Aagaard to admit that Marin didn't use all available sources that he should have used and therefore the book isn't as good as it could be!

IP Logged

Zaphod Beeblebrox

YaBB Newbies
Offline

Life is wasted on the living.

Posts: 11
Joined: 07/04/08

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #107 - 07/18/08 at 21:27:05

Maybe it is good to realize your question is rethorical, since none of the anwers seem to please you. You keep on asking why Marin didn't use these sources, but as a matter of fact, this is more a complaint, rather than a question. I mean, what do you want to hear? Marin did not use these sources because he is just a lazy, incompetent author, and his books suck big time. Something like that?

IP Logged

Anonymous

Ex Member

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #106 - 07/18/08 at 19:23:08

Anonymous, I think you are making different points now. 'Omitting' 8 Nd2 in the Ponziani is in my view a valid point, albeit one of far less importance than you attach to it. It is fair to say that the reader could have been better equipped than he has been to meet this move by White; of course no repertoire book can equip the reader to meet every move, but there is scope for debate about whether this one should have been covered or not.

However, your point about 5...Bxd4 and 8..Nd4 is different; you are saying that Marin could have recommended better moves for Black. Now maybe he could and maybe he couldn't - both your examples are highly contentious (John Emms recommended 4 00/5 d4 for White in Dangerous Weapons, so he presumably doesn't agree with you), but after all he could have recommended the Petroff instead of 2...Nc6. However, I really don't consider this a valid criticism. The purpose of a repertoire book is to show one reasonable way Black can play in each situation. If 5...exd4 or 8...exf4 were actually bad moves, that would be different, but they're not. 5..exd4 in particular transposes to the Max Lange, which Marin wants to play anyway in other orders (I think, no?). So choosing it as repertoire here is a no-brainer. A repertoire isn't an academic exercise in trying to refute this or that move. It's a way of kicking off the game, and considerations such as thematic coherence, absence of memory strain and avoiding dangerous pet lines of White players even if they may be unsound, are all important. After all in many people's view 2...exf4 is decidedly better than 2...Bc5, but there's a lot of pragmatic merit in settling for it even if 2 exf4 and 3 g5 may one day be definitively shown to be best.

IM John Cox, I don't know what your talking about! Most of Marin's recommendations are also recommended in either Play the Open Games as Black, The Chess Advantage in Black and White, or Play 1 e4 e5!. This is why Marin should have used these sources. You said they recommend different repertoire lines but they don't!

IP Logged

Markovich

God Member
Offline

Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #105 - 07/18/08 at 13:20:48

5..exd4 in particular transposes to the Max Lange, which Marin wants to play anyway in other orders (I think, no?).

No actually, if I recall correctly, it's a little weird. Marin doesn't want Black to play the Two Knights, which is the usual way of reaching the Max. He wants Black to play the Max, with all of its complexity, just to counter this move order. Personally as I said, I'm not as impressed by White's play after 5...Bxd4 as Marin seems to be.

« Last Edit: 07/18/08 at 15:06:38 by Markovich »

The Great Oz has spoken!

IP Logged

IMJohnCox

God Member
Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender:

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #104 - 07/18/08 at 12:23:41

Anonymous, I think you are making different points now. 'Omitting' 8 Nd2 in the Ponziani is in my view a valid point, albeit one of far less importance than you attach to it. It is fair to say that the reader could have been better equipped than he has been to meet this move by White; of course no repertoire book can equip the reader to meet every move, but there is scope for debate about whether this one should have been covered or not.

However, your point about 5...Bxd4 and 8..Nd4 is different; you are saying that Marin could have recommended better moves for Black. Now maybe he could and maybe he couldn't - both your examples are highly contentious (John Emms recommended 4 00/5 d4 for White in Dangerous Weapons, so he presumably doesn't agree with you), but after all he could have recommended the Petroff instead of 2...Nc6. However, I really don't consider this a valid criticism. The purpose of a repertoire book is to show one reasonable way Black can play in each situation. If 5...exd4 or 8...exf4 were actually bad moves, that would be different, but they're not. 5..exd4 in particular transposes to the Max Lange, which Marin wants to play anyway in other orders (I think, no?). So choosing it as repertoire here is a no-brainer. A repertoire isn't an academic exercise in trying to refute this or that move. It's a way of kicking off the game, and considerations such as thematic coherence, absence of memory strain and avoiding dangerous pet lines of White players even if they may be unsound, are all important. After all in many people's view 2...exf4 is decidedly better than 2...Bc5, but there's a lot of pragmatic merit in settling for it even if 2 exf4 and 3 g5 may one day be definitively shown to be best.

IP Logged

trw

YaBB Moderator
Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1253
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender:

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #103 - 07/18/08 at 04:38:25

Aagaard, your excuses are getting more pathetic every time! If you are just going to come out with a reprint, just do a reprint. But if you are going to do a revised second edition, make sure ALL the lines that need updating are updated!

GM Tony Kosten is basically saying he thinks that whole line of the Ponziani is bad for Black. He doesn't think your earlier deviations to 10 Qf3 are good either!

I am also shocked that you think Play the Open Games as Black is really dated and riddled with errors! Even if it is riddled wih errors (which I don't believe) there are still more recent sources like The Chess Advantage in Black and White and Play 1 e4 e5 that Marin should have used. Here are two examples that I gave earlier that show that Marin's books could have been better if he had used these two sources.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0 Nf6 5 d4!?, Marin recommends 5...exd4 and spends two whole chapters discussing it! He says 5...Bxd4 is too risky but if he had looked at Larry Kaufman's The Chess Advantage in Black and White, he would have realized that 5...Bxd4 is not to risky and basically refutes this line for White and could have just recommended 5...Bxd4 and analyzed it in about half a page instead of giving two chapters on 5...exd4!

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Bc5 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Nc6 6 d3 Bg4 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3, he recommends 8...exf4 and says 8...Nd4 is bad because of 9 Qg3 and then only gives 9 Nxc2+, 9... Qe7, and 9...exf4 for Black, but if he had used Play 1 e4 e5!, he would have realized that 9...0-0! is ok for Black!

These are just 2 examples of many more i can show!

apples and oranges dude... I mean you're saying one source is right and therefore another source must be wrong. If chess could be this definitive so easily it would already have been solved. The reality is that is up to YOU to do your own research using the sources available. You must decide what you consider too risky. It would be a cold day in hell before I played Bxd4 because I agree with Marin not Kaufman. I happen to agree with Kaufman on another of his other wonderful suggestions but not this one. You can't possibly ask someone else to make these types of decisions for you. They can help you weigh the pros and cons but that is it. Should you go to college at a state school, take out loans for a private school or delay college til you have the funds for the one you want. I mean honestly what you're asking is both illogical and impossible. This is not an academic research paper where all sources are relevant back to the dawn of time. This is chess. Half the sources out there are dated garbage and even if they have a few chapters that is still relevant... the amount of time spent for him to get a few extra words of analysis is ridiculous when you could just access these sources yourself. What you are asking for is an encyclopedia that is never wrong. Sure take kosten's analysis if that is what you agree with but that is your personal choice. I don't know how else to explain to you how childish your logic sounds.

you know on a sidenote... Nigel Davies' request for no anonymous people makes awhole more sense now.

Aagaard, I just looked at Marin's bibliography for Beating the Open Games and he has Play the Evan's Gambit on there from 1997! Play the Open Games as Black was written in 2000! Your saying Marin didn't use Play the Open Games as Black as a source because it is dated and not computer checked but Play the Evan's Gambit is even more dated and im sure that book wasn't computer checked!

IP Logged

MNb

God Member
Offline

Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10355
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender:

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #101 - 07/18/08 at 01:44:24

Botterill already in 1986 (and I am curious, dear Anonymous, if Marin did not include his book in his bibliography - might be another grave omission!) called 10...Qe6 "reasonably safe and hence hardly in the spirit of this lively variation."After 8...d3 9.Qe3 Bc5 10.fxg7 Rg8 11.Nd4 Black should play Bxd4 (Grabinsky improved on Botterill's analysis after 11...Qe7, 15.Ne4! was his novelty) 12.cxd4 Bf5 and matters have been unclear since Iskov-Kaiszauri, Oslo 1980 (0-1 in 28 moves).But again, I only will discuss this in the thread Micawber gave a link to. I actually had forgotten about it.

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.GC Lichtenberg

IP Logged

ArKheiN

God Member
Offline

I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 715
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #100 - 07/17/08 at 21:57:10

Anonymous, I know Agaard's secret. Marin and him knew that the Ponziani was the refutation of 1..e5, but they tried to hide that. Why would someone buy a refuted opening repertoire? And as an active player, Marin will uses the Ponziani himself as a devastating effect when everyone will think that Black already equalized.

IP Logged

rossia

Senior Member
Offline

Saw: "Game Over!"

Posts: 333
Location: Irkutsk
Joined: 09/17/07

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #99 - 07/17/08 at 21:12:43

Aagaard, your excuses are getting more pathetic every time! If you are just going to come out with a reprint, just do a reprint. But if you are going to do a revised second edition, make sure ALL the lines that need updating are updated!

GM Tony Kosten is basically saying he thinks that whole line of the Ponziani is bad for Black. He doesn't think your earlier deviations to 10 Qf3 are good either!

I am also shocked that you think Play the Open Games as Black is really dated and riddled with errors! Even if it is riddled wih errors (which I don't believe) there are still more recent sources like The Chess Advantage in Black and White and Play 1 e4 e5 that Marin should have used. Here are two examples that I gave earlier that show that Marin's books could have been better if he had used these two sources.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0 Nf6 5 d4!?, Marin recommends 5...exd4 and spends two whole chapters discussing it! He says 5...Bxd4 is too risky but if he had looked at Larry Kaufman's The Chess Advantage in Black and White, he would have realized that 5...Bxd4 is not to risky and basically refutes this line for White and could have just recommended 5...Bxd4 and analyzed it in about half a page instead of giving two chapters on 5...exd4!

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Bc5 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Nc6 6 d3 Bg4 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3, he recommends 8...exf4 and says 8...Nd4 is bad because of 9 Qg3 and then only gives 9 Nxc2+, 9... Qe7, and 9...exf4 for Black, but if he had used Play 1 e4 e5!, he would have realized that 9...0-0! is ok for Black!

These are just 2 examples of many more i can show!

IP Logged

Jacob Aagaard

Full Member
Offline

Quality Chess says hi!

Posts: 165
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: 01/16/08
Gender:

Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd EditionReply #97 - 07/17/08 at 07:00:17

I apparently cannot get through with this one to Mr. A, maybe because it makes his whole line of argumentation redundant. BTOG II was essentially a reprint. With very limited time on his hands, we asked Mihail to look into comments made on the first edition. This and his own practice was the backbone of the expanded reprint.

Some of the books mentioned were not out when the original book were written, and to be honest, I told Mihail that the Emms book was pretty dated. I know it is a very popular book, but it is filled with simple mistakes, as it is probably the last opening book not to be computer checked in any way. For example, there is this line:

He mentioned this line as very dangerous for Black. In reality 23...Ke6 was an immediate draw. As I had seen the game live, I had spotted it myself, but any computer would have pointed it out. I remember checking the book over back then and finding many of these mistakes.

I am not out to criticise John's book, it was exactly from that point where the culture in chess and chess writing changed to everything being fritzed, but it does mean that as a source it would be heavy chewing.

About 10.Qf3. If indeed this is worse for Black, then there are the other 6-7 options I gave to turn to.

In essense all openings will give Black problems to solve, but this does not look any more threatening to me than any of the other options you can work out. After 1.e4 e5 I have Maybe a million games in my database. 8.Nd2 represents 3 of these. In only (!) 336 pages there will have to be made some choices.

I should maybe add this - we are at the moment working on the first two volumes in our Grandmaster Repertoire series, which will be announced properly in August. John and I have tried really hard to include all possible sources. I can assure you that 1) this is really hard and 2) most of the recommendations existing in other books are utter rubbish.

There are two recent books that recommend some gambits and try to make them look playable by suggesting new moves here and there without analysis. With analysis these suggestions become rather humorous, one of them transposing to the main line with two tempos less. So far I have not come across any new recommendation in the sources we have seen that are really improvements. We will do more to include responses to them, but honestly, many writers out there do not put a lot of work into their analysis, unfortunately. Maybe the conclusion we need to make is to pay more attention to the ideas given here on Chess Publishing .